shred 30 score

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 25 Nov 2004 15:25

At wolrds I was surprised Vasek beat Honza in shred 30. After watching Evan's video I scored both of their finals. If you don't count paradon, dod, ddd and barfly as uniques I scored Vasek at 220, and 28 uniques not 31. Honza had 221! If you use 31 uniques I get close to what the official results were.
I think they called those 4 moves unique? ARE THEY? Vasek must have thought they were or he wouldn't have thrown them, right?
Any one else wanna weight in on this mystery/possible contraversy.

NOTE: I suppose this requise a video of the shred 30 finals, anyone wanna post it?[/u]

Paulsator · Post by **Paulsator** » 25 Nov 2004 15:53

those moves are just as unique as dada curve and ripwalk (or stepping clipper/whirl, stepping far clipper/drifter e.g.) are.
also if youve hit ddd, dod, barfly and paradon you know they all feel slightly different. i thinks its definetely okay to count them all as uniques. and they even all have a different jobs notation in contrast to e.g. toe same drifter and pixie op clipper which have the same jobs...

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 25 Nov 2004 20:23

I've been here before. You all know what I think by now. Paul said:

they all feel slightly different

Yeah, slightly. Only slightly. Slightly is not enough when counting up things like VARIETY and UNIQUES. What does "slightly unique" mean? If somebody wants to be rewarded for unique moves then they'd better show me more than "slightly different". Why does "slightly different" count the same as very different? I mean, if your intention is to do a different move, do a really different move. And another thing, why do we accept such low standards for ourselves?

james · Post by **james** » 25 Nov 2004 21:19

Yeah, if we really want to raise the bar get rid of the pdx and xdex add.

Dod, paradon, barfly and ddd are all the same move, they should not be considered unique.
Job's is flawed, and should not be used to determine anything.

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 25 Nov 2004 21:29

Get rid of pdx? So whirl would be worth the same as a "far whirl"? Dlo the same as "far" dlo? Do you honestly think thats a good solution? Its pretty radical. Shred 30 is stale enough without doing that.

PS: On an unrelated note, I think that it should be 30 contacts shred, not 30 seconds.

Anyway..

james · Post by **james** » 25 Nov 2004 21:42

I'm just saying if you REALLY want to raise the bar that's what you'd have to do.
It should definitely be 30 contacts.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 25 Nov 2004 23:05

I think the current situation is definitly the best for having a forumla for judging the competition. I have no problems with it or with those moves being unique - they are definitly unique in my opinion. The only other option for judging the event would be to have it judged subjectively rather than an arbitary system. I note for example the finland shred 30 (last year I think) where Felix came a close second but hit moves like double spinning clipper and swirl>reverse swirl in his combo. I think Lasse won and hit much more standard moves and went for cheaper higher add moves. If it was subjective I probably would have given it to Felix (although I think maybe Felix dropped once and Lasse none? - that would be a factor too!)

habitat · Post by **habitat** » 26 Nov 2004 01:59

james wrote:Dod, paradon, barfly and ddd are all the same move, they should not be considered unique.

Really? I always thought dod and paradon were set from a toe and ddd and barfly were set from the clip, oh yeah and doesnt a barfly end up on op clip and ddd on the same, or doesn't paradon end on op side clip and dod on the same side clip.

Man, I guess I am wrong, they are all the same, definatly not different. I guess blur and smear are the same too, essentially

bob · Post by **bob** » 26 Nov 2004 02:28

another thing that bothered me about all this is that double over down and barfly are unique, but toe set same side butterfly and infinity aren't. there is a one dex difference, but the motions are pretty much the same. why is one unique and the other not?\

bob

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 26 Nov 2004 06:00

So there is just two unique Butterfly moves due rules? - just a question

I think all those Down Doubles are as different as day and night are!
I think that Surging muted Clipper and Vortex are unique tricks! Crispy Torque and original Torque are different!
Those examples were from the edge and I can understand if somebody disagrees. But it's the fucking technique wich makes all the tricks different!

It's like saying that Schmoe and Magellan or Parkwalk and Sidewalk are same tricks when saying that DOD and DDD are same tricks!
Think about it!

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 07:19

bob said:

another thing that bothered me about all this is that double over down and barfly are unique, but toe set same side butterfly and infinity aren't. there is a one dex difference, but the motions are pretty much the same. why is one unique and the other not?\

Its called a Double Standard, and double standards are usually considered a bad thing, and seem to me to be indefensible if one is trying to maintain a logically consistent set of rules. I've always maintained that moves that are essentially the same motion but start on a different setting surface should be counted as the same move for purposes of counting unique tricks. The "Official Rules of Footbag Sports" is very clear in that regard. However, I am not hung up on it, and would concede that there does exist some bit of difference between Paradon and Barfly, and I would accept that they be scored as unique from one another if only we were to apply this rule consistently, meaning that then every move with essentially the same components be counted as unique from all other moves with the same components if only they were set from a different surface. Its the double standard that bothers me most. We cannot have it that SOME moves are unique because they come from a different setting surface but SOME OTHER moves are not unique although they also come from a different setting surface. DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE BAD. Its gotta be all one way or all the other. Given those two choices, I prefer what I see as the choice with higher standards for awarding points. I prefer to make it tougher to earn a mark for uniqueness. Also, given the "no double standards" requirement, I prefer that one can only be rewarded for the uniqueness of a trick once per side/foot. One unique butterfly per side is enough. One unique double-butterfly per side is enough. My high-standard-requirement says "now that you've shown me your double butterfly (Barfly, Paradon, etc.), don't show me another double-butterfly from a different basic stall, show me something totally different to earn your next unique".
I'm having a not-so-funny feeling of deja vu.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 07:23

ana-ali said:

It's like saying that Schmoe and Magellan or Parkwalk and Sidewalk are same tricks when saying that DOD and DDD are same tricks!
Think about it!

Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying. That is, Schmoe is equivalent to Magellan. Parkwalk is equivalent to Sidewalk. Ripwalk is equivalent to Dimwalk. A move has to have some component other than the setting foot that differentiates it from its analogue with the other setting foot, unless the difference in which foot sets the trick also causes the addition of a Paradox add.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 07:28

james said:

Yeah, if we really want to raise the bar get rid of the pdx and xdex add.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. For the record, I have no problems with paradox or xdex. I can take them or leave them. However, I'd sooner lose the delay add and perhaps the cross-body add.

This, though, seems like a very different issue. I beleive "what counts as unique" is a question of how we apply the present scoring system, how we use the rules we have. Getting rid of Paradox, x-dex, delay, cross-body, etc, seems to be a matter of making a new scoring system, making a new set of rules.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 07:34

Laroche said:

PS: On an unrelated note, I think that it should be 30 contacts shred, not 30 seconds.

You're right, this is a little unrelated, but I still want to comment. It's an interesting idea, and I'd agree so long as you removed the 30 second time limit. I think we either need a timed event with no trick limit, or a Big 30 without a time limit. Limiting both the time and the number of tricks seems to be unreasonably restrictive given that its a freestyle game where individual differences in playing style should be encouraged.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 07:48

Jeremy said:

The only other option for judging the event would be to have it judged subjectively rather than an arbitary system.

Jeremy, I don't think this is necessary. We already have one type of competition judged subjectively, the freestyle routines. The objective scoring of the shred was the response to the limitations of the subjective scoring of the routines. Now we've got one of each. I like it this way. Scoring shred subjectively isn't such a bad idea. To balance it, though, I'd say we would need to bring more objectivity back into the routines. They used to have a pretty objective way of counting up variety and difficulty, etc, but all that counting proved cumbersome and difficult to apply quickly to get results that we could put up on the screen for the audience to see. Also, it made for some long pauses between competitors while the judges finished the lengthy process of tallying up all those variables. Some believe that we were actually finally getting good at that whole process and with just a little more practice (and the addition of a lap-top computer to compile all those numbers) we'd have been able to do it all fairly quickly. None-the-less, for the sake of expediency we ditched it all not long ago to try a simpler scoring system.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 26 Nov 2004 07:54

wtf?

OK, you got some radical opinions there.
In fact that's not freestyle anymore. The sport is about being unique. every single trick with different Job's notation are different tricks.

Examples -

Vortex:
Clip > (back spin) >> Same in > Same Cip
Crispy Vortex:
Clip > (back spin) > Same in >> Same Clip

I still can see how someone wants to argue about those, but I really can't see the problem with these:

Parkwalk:
Toe > Same in >> Same out > Op Clip
Sidewalk:
Clip > Op in >> Op Out > Op Clip

or

Paradon:
Toe >> Op out > Same out > Op Clip
Barfly:
Clip >> Same out > Same out > Op Cliper

Those a totaly different tricks!!

For what were the ">>" signs created for Jobs? For telling the dirrefency in different moves!

Little components are what this freestyle in it's current for is all about.

PS - You should have put all that in one post, altought it makes the quoting difficoult...

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 26 Nov 2004 08:50

Jon, are you saying moves with pixie sets and moves with stepping sets should be the same move?

*Jon, sorry.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 09:08

OK, you got some radical opinions there.

Radical, perhaps, if you have not read the IFC Official Rules of Footbag Sports, as published by the International Footbag Players Association. I think the following is pretty clear:

Unique Move
For the purpose of Composition Judging, a unique move is any move containing an add value whose add components are different from any other move done in that performance. Spin directions and leg direction in dexterity moves are considered different; moves coming from a different set are not unique unless that set forces another add component (i.e. body, in the case of "paradox" moves) to be added

Jobs notation is simply a convenienty short-hand to describe a trick or a string of tricks. It does not establish the rules of scoring contests, and the rules of scoring contests does not rely on Job's notation.

Giving a trick a different name, or some extra arrows in its written description, doesn't make it trick different. Stephen Barnes can spell my name with an extra h, but I'm still the same person

.

Little components are what this freestyle in it's current for is all about.

I'll agree. However, the rules are clear when they say the setting surface doesn't count. You are mistakenly considering the setting surface a component of the move. I say the setting surface is not a component of the move. The components of a move are everything that occurs after the bag leaves the foot. The setting surface of the current move is actually the final component of the previous trick. I believe that to consider it a component of the following trick also is to count this component twice (the surface counts once when you finish one trick, and you count that same component again when you start the next trick? I say no.) and I don't think it is right to do that.

John, are you saying moves with pixie sets and moves with stepping sets should be the same move?

Yes, Stephen, thats what I'm saying. At least so far as scoring a shred contest is concerned.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 26 Nov 2004 09:22

Oh bugger... I had no clue of that rule being existed. Well nobody is obeying it anyway...

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Nov 2004 09:25

I think I'll try one more example for now.
ana-ali said:

every single trick with different Job's notation are different tricks.

First, says who? Second, butterfly can appear in Job's notation as such:
Toe > same out > op clip.
Toe > op out > op clip.
Clip > same out > op clip.
Clip > op out > same clip.
Outside stall > op out > op clip.
Outside stall > same out > op clip.
Inside stall > same out > op clip.
Inside stall > op out > op clip.
Flapper > same out > op clip.
Flapper > op out > op clip.
top of the knee > op out > op clip.
bottom of the knee > op out > op clip.
Forehead > out > op clip.

Where would you like to draw the line? These all have different Job's notations. No matter how you write the notation though, its still just butterfly. This applies equally to more advanced moves like double-butterfly or stepping/pixie/quantum butterfly[/b]

In a related example: if I were to hit paradon and barfly on the same side in a competition, and then I were to drop the bag, pick it up, and begin again with a hand-toss-to-double-butterfly, do we count that as a second paradon, a second barfly, or a unique trick distinct from the barfly and paradon?